This page contains a county measure certified to
appear on the November 6, 2012, General Election ballot.
All voters residing in the county will be eligible to vote on
this measure.

For each measure in the Local Voters’ Pamphlet, the
legislative authority of the jurisdiction placing the measure
on the ballot is required to formally appoint committees to
prepare statements advocating the approval and rejection
of the measure. If the jurisdiction is unable to make such
appointments, the Thurston County Auditor advertises for such
appointments.

The Auditor’s Office encourages you to thoroughly review all
statements and seek additional information from the jurisdictions,
the appointed citizens’ committees, and the local and regional
media.

Please Note: Statements are the opinions of
the authors and have not been
checked for factual or grammatical
accuracy by the Auditor’s Office.

Thurston County - Proposition No. 1

All voters in the county will vote on this measure.

Ballot Title:

Explanatory Statement:

Shall Public Utility District No. 1 of Thurston
County construct or acquire electric
facilities for the generation, transmission or
distribution of electric power?

Yes

No

Pursuant to RCW 54.08.070 a petition for the Thurston
County Public Utility District to construct or acquire electric
facilities was certified to have sufficient signatures and was
placed on the general election ballot by Resolution No.
14776 of the Thurston County Board of Commissioners.
The Thurston County Public Utility District was formed in
1938 and currently owns and operates 155 water systems
with about 3,200 customers. The proposal would authorize
the Thurston County Public Utility District to construct or
acquire electric facilities for the generation, transmission, or
distribution of electric power.

Vote “Yes” and join the 55% of Washington residents who already enjoy the
benefits of public power! Proposition 1 authorizes our Public Utility District
(PUD) to evaluate, plan and implement a feasible transition to public power.
A local, elected PUD reflects community values.

Vote “Yes” so you have a choice and save money
PSE, a foreign-owned corporation, holds a power monopoly in Thurston
County. PSE rates are higher than any of the state’s 23 electric PUDs. The
PUD can save money by: 1) competing with PSE to offer better prices;
2) accessing cheap federal hydropower; 3) operating at cost - without profit;
4) obtaining grants available only for public agencies; and 5) using municipal
bonds with low interest rates. Vote “Yes” to give Thurston County a public
alternative.

Vote “Yes” on job creation
The State allows PSE shareholders a 9.8% profit - millions of dollars sent
from Thurston County to foreign owners. Our PUD will keep more money
here at home; stimulate our economy; create local jobs; and support local
businesses with cheaper, cleaner power.

Vote “Yes” on reliability
Investment in infrastructure and maintenance will avoid power outages, as
other PUDs have proven. PUD workers will be stationed in Thurston County,
for faster response and greater reliability.

Vote “Yes” on green energy
PSE gets most of its electricity from coal and natural gas. PUDs use mostly
hydropower. Thurston PUD can choose resources our community prefers.

Join over 15,000 signers of the public power petition - vote “Yes” for public
power. Info: http://www.ThurstonPublicPower.org/.

Statement submitted by: John Pearce, Jim Lazar, and Paul Pickett

Proposition 1 is risky, costly, and poorly defined. It gives a small government
entity authority to condemn private utility property, acquire more public debt,
increase property taxes, set electricity rates and take over all electrical facilities in Thurston County. Voters should reject Proposition 1 and vote “no.”

The proposal is a blank check we cannot afford. It gives Thurston PUD the
authority to buy Puget Sound Energy’s (PSE) local electrical system before
knowing the total cost, utility rate or property tax impacts. The proposal
creates a decade of uncertainty by giving the PUD 10 years to decide how to
move customers to public power.

Our electrical service would be put at risk as an inexperienced PUD works
to grow from only 3,200 water customers into 118,000 electrical customers. Voters have no second chance to say “stop” if public power is more expensive
than expected because PUD commissioners don’t need a second vote - even
if the proposal does not live up to election-year promises.

That’s what happened in Jefferson County. In 2008 public power proponents
claimed that Jefferson PUD could take over PSE and start an electric utility
for $47 million. Four years later the cost is $115 million. Voters, customers,
and tax payers are stuck with that decision. Thurston is seven times larger -
making the risk greater.

For 125 years PSE has been Thurston County’s experienced, solid, and
reliable community partner. The cost and risk associated with buying PSE
with public resources is too high. Please vote “no.”

Statement submitted by: Doug Mah, Ralph Munro, and Diane Oberquell

Rebuttal of the Statement For:

Rebuttal of the Statement Against:

The proposition is risky, costly, and outdated. Most PUDs were formed with
Federal assistance in the 1930’s. Actual costs in Jefferson County are more
than double original estimates, resulting in property tax increases.

PSE built our system, has local crews, already buys BPA hydropower,
is Washington’s leader in wind power, and exceeds State green power
requirements. Proponents offer no cost estimates, no experience, no plan, no
second chance. Please vote “no.”

For more, visit www.protectthurstonpower.com.

The opponents’ statement distorts many facts. Under PUD policy, taxes
cannot be used for acquisitions. The PUD is elected and meets in public. PSE
is a foreign-owned corporation whose leaders meet in secret.

Competition with PSE helps Thurston County. PSE’s rates are higher than all
23 PUDs providing electric service. Hermiston, Oregon went public in 2001.
Their citizens now pay 25% less than the area’s private utility rates thanks to
inexpensive BPA power.

Statements are written by the "for" and "against" committee members, who are solely responsible for the content therein.